A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Punishment of the crime

On November 29, 2012, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of one year and two months of imprisonment for fraud at the Seoul Southern District Court on November 29, 201, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on February 5, 2013.

On November 10, 2009, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “A victim C shall be paid twice as much as he/she would be paid if he/she operates a business overseas, and if he/she borrowed money, he/she would also be paid as twice as he/she would be paid.”

However, in fact, the defendant was unable to receive investments in Indonesia E E E development projects promoted with D, and the housing projects of the Republic of Indonesia were being tried to implement the projects as a result of the development project of the above E E, but it was merely an early planning stage for investors at the time. The defendant did not have any personal property and did not have any intent or ability to repay even if he borrowed money from the victim.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, as such, by deceiving the victim, received from the victim the remittance of KRW 60 million on November 10, 2009, and KRW 17 million on December 2, 2009 to the account in the name of the Defendant, respectively.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. C’s legal statement;

1. Each police statement of the F, G, H, and D;

1. A business registration certificate, a detailed statement of transactions, a copy of a statement of transactions, a certificate of creation of collateral security, a certified copy of the register, or a borrowed copy;

1. Previous convictions indicated in judgment: The application of Acts and subordinate statutes to criminal records and investigation reports;

1. Relevant Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of criminal punishment, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. The defendant and defense counsel on the argument of the defendant and defense counsel under the latter part of Articles 37 and 39(1) of the Criminal Act concerning concurrent crimes are arguing that the defendant borrowed the above money from the victim, but the defendant did not have the intention to obtain the above money by fraud.

Domins, Domins, .